Re: Debian Installer 6.0 Beta1 release (WPA support)
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 10:03:12AM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-11-05, Thomas Goirand <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 11/03/2010 01:57 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> >> then, a few
> >> months before the release, we start getting suggestions to add this or
> >> that fancy new thingy....
> > Do you consider that WPA support is a "fancy new thing" ???
> You're free to do a play on his words, of course. From the point of d-i
> development it would be a new feature, yes.
Sure, but Christian's words were quite dismissive as well, like nobody
would ever need something as strange as WPA to install Debian.
> > With all due respect, I believe that my favorite distribution not having
> > support for such an old technology would be quite lame. That's the kind
> > of things that makes people go the Ubuntu way or more generally think
> > that Debian is not adapted for their desktop use (and in that case, I
> > would agree...).
> Ubuntu's alternate installer doesn't support it neither. It only applies
> to the netinst case, too, which Ubuntu doesn't offer as prominently.
> (Ok, if we offer it prominently might be another question but Ubuntu does
> do their QA mainly on the ISOs they generate.)
Ubuntu isn't defined by its alternate installer. If people can't
install Debian and move to Ubuntu, they will use ubiquity.
> And then, very very useful to pressure others with the "this will cause
> people to use Ubuntu" in a corner case that's only interesting to
> professional users anyway, who know what to choose.
What do you mean? Netinst is the preferred way to install Debian (at
least, that is what people in #debian get told when they ask), to save
on full ISO downloads.
I would say installing via netinst and WPA would be the usual end-user
way to install Debian, everything *else* being professional.
> For me netinst over wired network is perfectly fine because I normally
> use PXE along with it, which does not work over WPA encrypted networks
Sure, but we're not just doing it for ourselves.
> > Whatever path will be taken (hide the functionality in the expert mode,
> > or have an unofficial ISO), as long as it's there, I think it's fine. I
> > sincerely hope a solution will be found,
> I guess you need to get *your* act together then, and get a clean
> solution for it, propose that to be merged and maybe get it in for now
> or for wheezy. Whining on a mailinglist isn't overly helpful.